2/3 of US would struggle to cover $1,000 crisis

[Tiberius]

Huh?

Fu cking!

So they had kids early which is likely the main reason why they are stuck in a dead end job. That was a choice. A very selfish and narrow minded choice. I'm curious as to why you feel they couldn't "do" college. Was it because their parents also made poor choices and couldn't afford to send them to even a junior college? Well that sucks but guess what? They will likely be perpetuating the chain of family poverty. Mostly due to poor choices which will rub off on their children. I have no sympathy for them. There are ways to get a pretty decent education for little or no cost. And there are ways to get more than a dead end job without a degree.

 

 

They don't read or write well and don't have the aptitude for it

So they had kids early which is likely the main reason why they are stuck in a dead end job. That was a choice. A very selfish and narrow minded choice. I'm curious as to why you feel they couldn't "do" college. Was it because their parents also made poor choices and couldn't afford to send them to even a junior college? Well that sucks but guess what? They will likely be perpetuating the chain of family poverty. Mostly due to poor choices which will rub off on their children. I have no sympathy for them. There are ways to get a pretty decent education for little or no cost. And there are ways to get more than a dead end job without a degree.

 

I will agree with you there. Stupidity is a powerful and natural force.

And yet you ask why some can't do college?

[Chef Jim]

They don't read or write well and don't have the aptitude for it

:

Whose fault is it they can't read or write well? How often are they themselves to blame for that?

[birdog1960]

 

Why doesn't it matter? It's the basis of your dogma for the last seven years.

giving that money directly to workers as a subsidy would be more effective in the short term (no trickle down lag or loss) and just as unsustainable. neither model matters. they won't work. we need taxation that redistributes wealth and removes the incentive for salaries 1000ands of times those of the lowest workers.

[Tiberius]

Whose fault is it they can't read or write well? How often are they themselves to blame for that?

You really believe that?

[TakeYouToTasker]

We need policy that disincentivizes innovation, enterprise, investment, and wealth creation; in favor of baking a much smaller pie that some individuals will have a slightly larger share of?

 

Do you have more food if you have 1% of a 100 lb. pie or 50% of a 1 lb. pie?

[GG]

giving that money directly to workers as a subsidy would be more effective in the short term (no trickle down lag or loss) and just as unsustainable. neither model matters. they won't work. we need taxation that redistributes wealth and removes the incentive for salaries 1000ands of times those of the lowest workers.

 

What does this mean, and how would you accomplish that without violating laws?

We need policy that disincentivizes innovation, enterprise, investment, and wealth creation; in favor of baking a much smaller pie that some individuals will have a slightly larger share of?

 

Do you have more food if you have 1% of a 100 lb. pie or 50% of a 1 lb. pie?

 

The answer is obvious. 50% is more than 1%. Duh.

[Tiberius]

We need policy that disincentivizes innovation, enterprise, investment, and wealth creation; in favor of baking a much smaller pie that some individuals will have a slightly larger share of?

 

 

Inequality and lack of government investment do that. If consumers can't afford to buy things, why would companies invest in making more of something? And look at the bio tech industry, so much is fueled there by all that money the government spends on health care.

 

Do you have more food if you have 1% of a 100 lb. pie or 50% of a 1 lb. pie?

To people with no money, it would not matter, they would not have any

[TakeYouToTasker]

Appropriate to place here:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/23/news/economy/wealthiest-americans-background-family/index.html?section=money_news_economy

 

 

 

About 77% of those surveyed said they grew up in the middle class or lower, including 19% who say they were poor. And they credit their success to three somewhat surprising factors: Hard work, ambition and family upbringing. Respondents even went so far as to say that these influences were much more important than "connections" or "innate talent."

 

"The points seem to be so traditional in nature," said Chris Heilmann, the chief fiduciary executive at U.S. Trust, Bank of America's private wealth management firm. "It's [about] deeply held family values rather than an inheritance or existing wealth,"

 

The survey was also a shout-out to strict parents. About 80% of respondents said their parents were firm disciplinarians. They also named "academic achievement," "financial discipline" and "work participation" as the family values that were most emphasized in their homes

 

It's all about the choices we make; and it's important to note that those choices are inter-generational.

 

The decision people make today not only impact them, but will deeply impact the types of decisions their children and grandchildren will have to make.

[birdog1960]

 

What does this mean, and how would you accomplish that without violating laws?

 

The answer is obvious. 50% is more than 1%. Duh.

let's talk math then. does 100x the lowest wage incentivize people to work harder? 20x's? it did for centuries. why does it now take 1000's of X's? or does it really?

[GG]

let's talk math then. does 100x the lowest wage incentivize people to work harder? 20x's? it did for centuries. why does it now take 1000's of X's? or does it really?

 

People never look at their wages relative to what the boss makes. They look at the absolute pay first. If it's not growing or is enough to provide for a comfortable living, then they get upset.

[TakeYouToTasker]

let's talk math then. does 100x the lowest wage incentivize people to work harder? 20x's? it did for centuries. why does it now take 1000's of X's? or does it really?

It's what it takes to attract the highest levels of talent in a competitive market.

 

Let me ask you a question: How many times more important to a company's short and long term success is the CEO than a low level factory or warehouse worker his company employs? 20x? 100x? 1000x? Or is the difference between an industry leader capable of negotiating billion dollar deals, and making billion dollar decisions, and an essentially fungible cog in his creation so unfathomably large that it's absurd to compare the compensation of the two?

Edited May 24, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[Chef Jim]

You really believe that?

 

Do I really believe what? See those were questions not statements.

[unbillievable]

 

People never look at their wages relative to what the boss makes. They look at the absolute pay first. If it's not growing or is enough to provide for a comfortable living, then they get upset.

People will often cite what their boss makes after they get laid off.

People also complain that they are not making as much as their co-workers regardless of their income.

Everyone complains that they are not provided enough for a comfortable living, even rich people.

[birdog1960]

People will often cite what their boss makes after they get laid off.

People also complain that they are not making as much as their co-workers regardless of their income.

Everyone complains that they are not provided enough for a comfortable living, even rich people.

often times justifiably so. what positive consequences result from someone making 100's of millions per year? it's more than they can ever likely spend. it's money not going to those who would spend it immediately because of need. there is a diminishing return on incentivizing those making those salaries above a threshold. and it leads to short term planning in many cases because c level execs can get rich and get out. damned be the future. all in all, it's counterproductive.

[TakeYouToTasker]

often times justifiably so. what positive consequences result from someone making 100's of millions per year? it's more than they can ever likely spend. it's money not going to those who would spend it immediately because of need. there is a diminishing return on incentivizing those making those salaries above a threshold. and it leads to short term planning in many cases because c level execs can get rich and get out. damned be the future. all in all, it's counterproductive.

 

I'll ask again, since you ignored me the first time:

 

How many times more important to a company's short and long term success is the CEO than a low level factory or warehouse worker his company employs? 20x? 100x? 1000x? Or is the difference between an industry leader capable of negotiating billion dollar deals, and making billion dollar decisions, and an essentially fungible cog in his creation so unfathomably large that it's absurd to compare the compensation of the two?

 

I'll then ask you a second question:

 

Why do you believe a reduction in CEO pay would lead to higher salaries for low level employees?

[jjamie12]

often times justifiably so. what positive consequences result from someone making 100's of millions per year? it's more than they can ever likely spend. it's money not going to those who would spend it immediately because of need. there is a diminishing return on incentivizing those making those salaries above a threshold. and it leads to short term planning in many cases because c level execs can get rich and get out. damned be the future. all in all, it's counterproductive.

What you keep on missing is that the "100's of millions per year" won't go to other workers. It will go to the corporation's bottom line.

[....lybob]

 

I'll ask again, since you ignored me the first time:

 

How many times more important to a company's short and long term success is the CEO than a low level factory or warehouse worker his company employs? 20x? 100x? 1000x? Or is the difference between an industry leader capable of negotiating billion dollar deals, and making billion dollar decisions, and an essentially fungible cog in his creation so unfathomably large that it's absurd to compare the compensation of the two?

 

I'll then ask you a second question:

 

Why do you believe a reduction in CEO pay would lead to higher salaries for low level employees?

 

It is sometimes argued that rising CEO compensation is a symbolic issue with no consequences for the vast majority. However, the escalation of CEO compensation and executive compensation more generally has fueled the growth of top 1 percent incomes. In a study of tax returns from 1979 to 2005, Bakija, Cole, and Heim (2010), studying tax returns from 1979 to 2005, established that the increases in income among the top 1 and 0.1 percent of households were disproportionately driven by households headed by someone who was either a nonfinancial-sector “executive” (including managers and supervisors and hereafter referred to as nonfinance executives) or a financial-sector executive or other worker. Forty-four percent of the growth of the top 0.1 percent’s income share and 36 percent of the top 1 percent’s income share accrued to households headed by a nonfinance executive; another 23 percent for each group accrued to financial-sector households. Together, finance workers and nonfinance executives accounted for 58 percent of the expansion of income for the top 1 percent of households and 67 percent of the income growth of the top 0.1 percent. Relative to others in the top 1 percent, households headed by nonfinance executives had roughly average income growth, those headed by someone in the financial sector had above-average income growth, and the remaining households (nonexecutive, nonfinance) had slower-than-average income growth. These shares may actually understate the role of nonfinance executives and the financial sector since they do not account for the increased spousal income from these sources.7

We have argued above that high CEO pay reflects rents, concessions CEOs can draw from the economy not by virtue of their contribution to economic output but by virtue of their position. Consequently, CEO pay could be reduced and the economy would not suffer any loss of output. Another implication of rising executive pay is that it reflects income that otherwise would have accrued to others: what the executives earned was not available for broader-based wage growth for other workers. (Bivens and Mishel 2013 explore this issue in depth.)

There are policy options for curtailing escalating executive pay and broadening wage growth. Some involve taxes. Implementing higher marginal income tax rates at the very top would limit rent-seeking behavior and reduce the incentives for executives to push for such high pay. Legislation has also been proposed that would remove the tax break for executive performance pay that was established early in the Clinton administration; by allowing the deductibility of performance pay, this tax change helped fuel the growth of stock options and other forms of such compensation. Another option is to set corporate tax rates higher for firms that have higher ratios of CEO-to-worker compensation. Other policies that can potentially limit executive pay growth are changes in corporate governance, such as greater use of “say on pay,” which allows a firm’s shareholders to vote on top executives’ compensation.

http://www.epi.org/publication/top-ceos-make-300-times-more-than-workers-pay-growth-surpasses-market-gains-and-the-rest-of-the-0-1-percent/

[TakeYouToTasker]

You haven't, nor have Biven and Mitchell, made any rational or compelling argument that those dollars would be diverted into labor rather than earnings. Labor prices itself in a competitive market, just like everything else. Labor does not magically become more valuable once CEO pay is reduced.

 

Yours is an argument that only seeks to pay some less rather than others more.

Edited May 24, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[....lybob]

You haven't, nor have Biven and Mitchell, made any rational or compelling argument that those dollars would be diverted into labor rather than earnings. Labor prices itself in a competitive market, just like everything else. Labor does not magically become more valuable once CEO pay is reduced.

 

Yours is an argument that only seeks to pay some less rather than others more.

wages basically have three options for growth, government mandate, labor scarcity, or pressure from collective bargaining -if earnings are increased organized labor can ask/apply pressure for a portion of that increase.

[unbillievable]

You haven't, nor have Biven and Mitchell, made any rational or compelling argument that those dollars would be diverted into labor rather than earnings. Labor prices itself in a competitive market, just like everything else. Labor does not magically become more valuable once CEO pay is reduced.

 

Yours is an argument that only seeks to pay some less rather than others more.

The reason why people can't have a productive debate on this issue is because they're asking different questions.

 

The right is asking how to improve the economics.

The left is asking how to enact social justice.

 

One is a question of math.

The other is one of fairness.